Comprehensive Examination Rtf

8/8/2019 Comprehensive Examination Rtf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comprehensive-examination-rtf 1/29

Ph.D. Comprehensive ExaminationGlobal Studies/ Culture and Identity Concentration

Stephen Sills

Department of Sociology

Arizona State University

9/28/2002 8:32 AMto

9/30/2002 3:37 AM



Stephen Sills Global Studies/ Culture and Identity Concentration

Toward a Unified Definition of Globalization

The term “globalization” is used frequently these days, often in ill-defined ways. Drawing on readings

from the core list that you think are relevant, develop a careful definition of the term “globalization”.

Then describe how you see it applying to economic, political, and cultural processes in the world today.

Be sure to address all three of these types of processes clearly in your answer.

Globalization is a contested1 and amorphous concept used in both academic and popular

writings. As a result of its conceptual vagueness, definitions of globalization abound.

Moreover, each academic discipline tends to focus on separate characteristics and facets

of globalization ranging from:

• Global movements of capital, cross-cultural trade and transnational corporations

(Economics)

• Homogenization of global consumer culture, mass media, and popular culture(Cultural Studies)

• Internationalization of nation-states, international human-rights discourse, andINGOs (Political Science, International Relations)

• Time-space compression and deterritorialization (Geography)

• Culture, identity and the condition of Modernity (Sociology, Anthropology) 2

Because of their flexible nature, Appadurai’s (1990) five dimensions of global cultural

flow ( Ethnoscapes, Technoscapes, Financescapes, Mediascapes and Ideoscapes)3 may be

useful in understanding these separate perspectives on globalization and helpful in

developing a definition that embraces all of its dimensions. In this essay, I will focus

specifically on three of these dimensions – Financescapes, Ethnoscapes and Ideoscapes –

1 “The current buzz-word to describe the contemporary situation is ‘globalization’. Personally, I think it is

meaningless as an analytic concept and serves primarily as a term of political exhortation (see Wallerstein

2000). It represents however an insistence, which seems to have resonance with both intellectuals and the

general public, that something very new is happening these days. This fits in with the syndrome of ‘post’-concepts.” Immanuel Wallerstein. From sociology to historical social science: prospects and obstacles.British Journal of Sociology, Volume 51, Number 1 (January 1, 2000), pp. 25-35. See also Hirst and

Thompson (1999). Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance, Polity Press.

2 Based upon handout and colloquium presentation by Jan Nederveen Pieterse Globalization and

governance Arizona State University, Tempe, 2000

3 Giddens (1990) lists four dimensions that are somewhat distinct from those of Appadurai: Nation-State

System (akin to ideoscapes), World Military Order (absent from Appadurai); International Division of

Labour (subsumed under Appadurai’s financescapes and somewhat under ethnoscapes); and World

Capitalist Economy (financescapes and technoscapes).

3



and their relations to economic, cultural and political globalism. Throughout this treatise,

I will examine the definitions of globalization found in the literature then develop a

definition that will provide a synthesis of current usage. Finally, I will apply that

generalized definition to the processes of globalization today.

Economic Globalism & Financescapes

Many definitions of globalization refer exclusively to an economic process that began

with international market capitalism sometime in the 16th century (Robertson 1992;

Wallerstein 1974) expanded and intensified in the later half of the 19th

century (Harvey

1989; Hobsbawm 1975) and resulted in the worldwide “economic revolution” of the late

20th century (Greider 1997; Sassen 2001). Economic globalism has been characterized by

instantaneous and perpetual flows of capital across borders and the rapid industrialization

of developing countries (Greider 1997). It has brought about the existence of a world

economy with “a single division of labor and multiple cultural systems” (Wallerstein

1974, 390).4 Economic globalism has likewise seen the creation of a web of global cities

or denationalized centers where the production and coordination of global resources

occur (Sassen 2001). Appadurai’s concept of the financescape, or “the very complex

fiscal and investment flows” that link cities in a “global grid of currency speculation and

capital transfer,” embraces these separate aspects of economic globalism (8). Moreover,

Appadurai emphasizes that while “deeply disjunctive and profoundly unpredictable” a

financescape influences and is influenced by the cultural and political aspects of

globalization (9).

4 Although Wallerstein does not use the term globalization, his depiction of a world economy can be seenas synonymous.




Cultural Globalism & Ethnoscapes

While the relation of globalization to global capitalism is decidedly important, the term

today refers to something more than features of the modern world economy. To many

authors the web of social linkages, which result from global markets, technological

advancements, and mobility of capital, products and peoples5, is the novel feature that

makes the global systems of today unique from those in history. For example, Tomlinson

(1999) sees globalization as a complex connectivity which he defines as the “rapidly

developing and ever-densening network of interconnections and interdependences that

characterize modern social life” (2). In the same way, Giddens (1990) sees globalization

as a network of social ties. Moreover globalization is for him a “dialectical process,”

which he defines as the “intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant

localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles

away and vice versa” (181). This dialectical process may result in what Barber (1995)

describes as the paradoxical concepts of tribalism (an intensification of local ethnic

culture and anti-globalization he refers to as Jihad ) and globalism (expansionistic hyper-

consumerism he calls McWorld ) which occur simultaneously within an increasingly

interconnected world.6 Likewise these opposing forces may be observed as well in

Appadurai (1990) as "global homogenization" and "heterogenization" that work in a

dialectical process creating paradoxes and disjuncture (5-6).7

5 Explained both under Financescapes and Technoscapes by Appurundai.

6 A recent example of this phenomenon would be the creation of redesigned bistro-style McDonald’s for

the anti-American French market. See Shirley Leung “McHaute Cuisine: Armchairs, TVs And Espresso --

Is It McDonald's? --- Burger Giant's Makeover In France Boosts Sales; Big Change for Fast Food --- Some

Franchisees Have a Beef” Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Aug 30, 2002

7 As an example, he use the internationalization of local culture that results in fetishes for the popular

culture of others such as popular American music in the Philippines and Hong-Kong martial arts movies inthe US.

5



Importantly, Giddens’ definition of globalization recognizes a new geography that

results from global linkages. Like David Harvey (1990), Giddens specifically refers to the

transformation in the concepts of space and time that occur as a result of these worldwide

social ties.8 Robertson (1992) also recognizes the spatial-temporal change that has

occurred in globalization process as he explains that it “refers both to the compression of

the world and to the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole" (8).

This definition acknowledges that individuals not only experience the effects of

globalization, but are cognizant of their place in a global community. Appadurai labels

the dimension of global culture that deals with the interconnectivity of individuals as

ehtnoscape, defining it as “the landscape of persons who constitute the shifting world in

which we live: tourists, immigrants, refugees, exiles, guest workers…” (7). His definition

too recognizes the role of individuals and groups of individuals (communities, kinship

groups, friendships, etc.) in creating the global linkages that may carry local culture to

paradoxical global scales.

Political Globalism & Ideoscapes

Political globalism is also both a result and cause of globalization. A major component of

political globalism within this body of literature has to do with the debate over what

constitutes a global actor. While some authors focus on the role of the nation-state

(Meyer et al. 1997; Huntington 1993; Giddens 1990; Wallerstein 1974)9 others

concentrate on the position of non-state actors such as INGOs and transnational

corporations in the global arena (Boli & Thomas 1999; Keck & Sikkink 1998; Giddens

8 However, while Giddens sees the change as a stretching of time (events) across space, Harvey sees it as a

compression of space and time that began with the British economic crisis of 1846/7.

9 Sassen (2001) emphasizes the growing international role of the city as disconnected from that of thenation-state. Thus, we might include the global city as a political actor as well.




1990). The content of the political discourse between nation-states and non-state actors

alike tends to focus on ideologies of global civil society including democratization,

universal human rights, and the erosion of political boundaries (Boli & Thomas 1999;

Keck & Sikkink 1998; Jacobson 1996).

Giddens (1990) explains that sovereignty of the nation-state developed in

conjunction with a global system of nations. He notes that “the sovereignty of the

modern state was from the first dependent upon the relations between states, in terms of

which each state (in principle if by no means always in practice ) recognised the

autonomy of others within their own borders” (183). The neorealist viewpoint of Meyer

et al. (1997) likewise sees the nation-state as constructed by the global institutionalizing

forces of a world society. Empirical evidence of these forces is found in the fact that

“nation-states exhibit a great deal of isomorphism in their structures and policies,”(151)

as well as the “expansive structuration” of even peripheral nation, regardless of the local

need for such structures (152-153).

Similarly, Boli & Thomas (1999) apply a neorealist view to the construction of

actors noting that “world polity is not reducible to states, transnational corporations

(TNCs), or national forces and interest groups” (13), but may be attributed to an

“overarching world culture” (14) or social structure. In the first chapter of their book,

Boli & Thomas promote the thesis that INGOs are formed by a global culture and are

influential in orienting other international actors (including nation-states) within the

world order. Keck and Sikkink (1998) make a similar argument that NGOs (through

transnational advocacy networks) influence nation-states both directly and indirectly

using “persuasion, socialization, and pressure” to bring about a reorientation of the

political frame (16). The theme of the emerging global frame is one of individual rights

7



and responsibilities, democratization of the political process and global

environmentalism.10 Falling within this discourse is the idea of Jacobson (1996) that

transnational migration, resulting from the intensification of global connectedness as

discussed in ethnoscapes, has “eroded the traditional basis of nation-state membership,

namely citizenship” (8). Jacobson maintains that while nation states as sovereign actors

have become less powerful in the global arena, individual rights and the role of the

judiciary have become more powerful. Thus, individuals and collective bodies of legal

authority become additional actors in political globalism.

The concept Appadurai defines as ideoscapes or “the ideologies of states and the

counter-ideologies of movements explicitly oriented to capturing state power or a piece

of it” (9) corresponds with the political dimension of globalization. He explains that

ideoscapes are political in nature and represent images such as “ ‘freedom’, ‘welfare’,

‘rights’, ‘sovereignty’, ‘representation’ and the master-term ‘democracy’”(10). Thus, this

term encompasses nation-states and non-state entities as rational actors at the same time

as recognizing the globalizing principles of the modern world polity.

A Synthesized Definition of Globalization

By creating a universal definition of globalization that acknowledges three of

Appadurai’s key dimensions of global culture ( Financescapes, Ethnoscapes and

Ideoscapes) it may be more broadly applied to current themes of the globalization

process. However, as with all generalizations, some specificity may be lost. Nonetheless,

I propose that globalization may be defined as:

10 Appadurai (1990) points out that these ideologies are “composed of elements of the Enlightenment

worldview” (9) inferring a Western orientation and valuation. Huntington (1993) proposes that these ideals

are decidedly Western and will lead to eventual conflict with non-Western nations as the West attempts toimpose democratization and individualism on cultures that are more collectivistic and authoritarian.




The interdependent and overlapping economic, socio-cultural, and

political fields or ‘landscapes,’ that result in a disarticulation of events

from space-time, a paradox of local identities within global contexts,

and a global framework that is both created from and encourages

global expansion of civil society.

The most important aspect of this definition is that these processes are interdependent

and overlapping . Each dimension includes elements of the others and cannot exist

independently.11 This definition clearly contains those of Tomlinson, Robertson, and

Giddens as nested models, while recognizing too the importance of the economic and

political dimensions and the general outcomes of globalism that we recognize as

globalization today. Moreover, this definition acknowledges that these processes occur at

all levels (from the micro to the macro) simultaneously and affect every facet of post-

modern life.

Application to contemporary economic, political, and cultural processes

As this definition is a holistic synthesis that stresses the co-dependence and

interrelatedness of global processes, it would be impossible to illustrate its application in

just one aspect at a time. For example, we may examine that global polity, the ongoing

political process constructed from the ideologies of individualism and democracy, cannot

exist without direct international social ties between: individuals (such as those that meet

at the Davos Forum); groups, organizations, NGOs & INGOs, and advocacy networks

(such as those meeting at countless international conferences); or nation-states (meeting

in forums such as the UN, the EU, the WTO, etc.). Likewise, world polity is dependent

upon the continuation of a worldwide marketplace in which information, services, and

products are produced and exchanged. Equally then, these marketplaces, while often

11 Think perhaps of a Yin-Yang with three complementary elements rather than two.

9



existing in a deterritorialized and disarticulated virtual space of instantaneous computer

transactions, must also have physical complements perhaps culturally, linguistically,

temporally, and spatially removed from the actual marketplaces themselves. These

market players, transnational corporations and powerful monopolists12 are maintained by

yet further disarticulated service providers somewhere within the web of interconnected

global cities of Saskia Sassen. Global centers, that came about with the expansion of

international markets and political accords that established the power of nation-states in

the age of industrialization, continue to grow today as individuals and institution become

increasingly mobile and gain more rights and freedoms. Global cities become the

magnets for further immigration, diasporas, displaced refugees and asylums seekers, and

provide the habitus for the continued transnationalization of elites and marginalized

populations alike, resulting in increased contact (and even friction) between ever

disparate local cultures. Simultaneously this cultural contact promotes the consumption

of the fashionable products of McWorld in the developing world and the fetishism of the

exogenous in core nations (Appadurai 1999; 16), creating a new global marketplace of

glocalized products (Robertson 1993; 173). Trends in popular culture such as that of the

modern primitive,13 new age or neo-mystism, neo-paganism, and contemporary

orientalism are simply examples of the “search for the fundamentals” of Robertson

(1993; 165 – 181) and the aesthetic of the “cosmopolitan” of Tomlinson (1999; 181 –

207) brought upon by this increasing contact between cultures. This cosmopolitan nature

of globalization illustrates the role of “the imagination as a social process” as discussed

by Appadurai (1990; 5) in that we may develop a global identity borrowed from the

12 See Barbers (1995) many references to Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch and others as

totalitarian rulers of McWorld.13 Also called urban tribalism, neo-tribalism, etc.




images we find in the media and our ideation of a global self. Thus, these concepts are

incorporated into my definition of globalization by inclusion of concept of local identities

within global contexts and the clear understanding that the fields of globalization are

intersecting and contingent upon one another.

While I see these often paradoxical processes as generally positive forces leading

to increased individual freedoms and the possibility of pluralistic global cultures,14 global

processes of oppositional cultural forces have created concern for some authors. Barber,

for example, sees the only path to a global civil society leading between possible ethnic

tribalization and conflict or featureless homogeneity of McWorld. He views the current

world polity as one that would attempt to coerce nations into a federalist system, only

resulting in further resistance by anti-global movement. He proposes a solution of

confederalization, resulting in a plethora of coexisting sovereign nation-states held

together by a democratic process (288-292). Samuel P. Huntington (1993), on the other

hand, offers an even more pessimistic view of the future. He maintains that “nation states

will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global

politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations” (22). Moreover,

these conflicts will arise due to basic cultural differences that he sees as immutable and

irresolvable. According to Huntington, an initial political result will be increased

economic regionalization followed by military “interaction” between Western and

Islamic countries, followed by conflict with other non-Western nations of East Asia. In

both cases, whether that of a precarious global pact between confederate nation-states or

eventual armed conflict between ethno-cultural blocs, I believe my definition to be

applicable as the force or mechanism that would create global agreement or

14 Akin to the cultural pluralism or multiculturalism espoused by educators throughout the late 20 th centurywhich touted the celebration of diversity within a single structure or social system.

11



fractionalization is the same – the current civil society that promotes formerly Western

ideals of individual freedoms, rights, and global citizenship.




Immigrant Acculturation, Incorporation, and Assimilation

The issue of immigrants' adaptation/incorporation/assimilation has concerned scholars for a long time.

Discuss the main frameworks and approaches (past and contemporary) dealing with this issue. Using an

immigrant group of your choice as an example, show how that group's experiences can be interpreted from

the different points of view in this debate

The concept of ethnoscapes offered by Appadurai (1993), and incorporated into the

definition of globalization above, clearly indicates that the world may be characterized by

an ever increasing mobility of individuals and groups. Therefore, as long as the

globalization processes continues, the concepts of assimilation, acculturation and

incorporation will be of growing importance. Traditional assimilation theory of Gordon

(1964; as cited and explained by Faist 2000) starts with acculturation, progresses toward

structural assimilation, or “the entry of immigrants into the primary groups of the

immigration country” (283), and ends with cultural adaptation and absorption into the

dominant culture. Yet, Portes and Rumbaut (1995) point out that “assimilation as the

rapid transformation of immigrants into Americans ‘as everyone else’ has never

happened” (141). They explain that ethnic resilience persists despite the pressure to

assimilate, and ethnic identity as “hyphen American” (Italian-American, Irish-American,

etc.) even has experienced a resurgence among both new and old immigrant groups. This

hybridity of cultural identities has been addressed to some degree by the “search for the

fundamental” (Robertson 1993) and the renewal of ethnic tribalism (Barber 1996), as

well as in the discourse on post colonial identity.15 Hybridity has also been a focal point

of the growing literature on transnationalism and transnational identities (Anthias 2001;

Vertovec 2001; Faist 2000a; Faist 2000b; Forner 1999; Roberts et al. 1999).

15 See especially, Stuart Hall (1994) “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” where he defines cultural identity as

a “‘production’ which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside,

representation” (392). As he explains cultural identity is about “‘becoming’ as well as ‘being’”(394).Moreover, Hall writes on the hybrid cultural identity of the African- European- Caribbean

13




assimilation, while maintenance of cultural identity (and a positive relationship with the

host) simply has the outcome of integration.17 In contrast, a negative relationship with the

dominant culture and the preservation of cultural identity leads to rejection and even

segregation. Finally, Berry proposes a fourth possibility of deculturation, where the

immigrant losses her own cultural identity in addition to having a negative relationship

toward the dominant society. Berry states that this form, while perhaps rare, could

explain marginalization and even ethnocide (12-17).18

Alba and Nee (1997) point out that the distinction between the group level and

individual level of ethnic assimilation and incorporation was unclear in the early

formulations of assimilation theory. Padilla (1980), in the introduction to his volume on

acculturation, clearly indicates that the role of the individual is important in the study of

acculturation as “the individual is crucial in whatever change that occurs through contact

between differing cultural orientations” (2). Likewise, Berry (1980) explains that

“acculturation requires the contact of at least two autonomous cultural groups [italics

mine]; there must also be change in one or more of the two groups which results from

their contact” (10). Berry consequently examines acculturation as a “two-level

phenomenon – that of the group and that of the individual” (11). Waters (1994) and

Portes and Zhou (1993) additionally add a temporal element to the group level as they

witness assimilation occurring over generations.

17 In this way he is much like Gordon who focused on the distinctions between cultural and structuralassimilation.18 While potentially useful, this framework does not account for many of the forms of intergroup relations

as it neglects the nature of exit from the homeland and the intentions of the migrant in the settlement

process. For example, the “middleman minorities” of Bonacich (1973) are not marginalized due to rejection

by the dominant culture, they do not lose their native culture, nor do they really become incorporated into

the host society. For a short time, they fill a unoccupied middle ground within the dominant society. As

their eventual intent is to return to the homeland, these sojourners therefore keep strong ties with co-ethnics

and few ties to the local communities (see page 586). The characteristics of these groups are: resistance to

exogamy, residential self segregation, language and cultural schools, maintenance of culture and religion,avoidance of local politics, and a high degree of organization.

15



Berry’s analysis of the assimilation and acculturation patterns of the late 1970s

hits upon one of the flaws of early migration theory that is addressed in the more

contemporary theories of segmented assimilation. In this line, Brubaker (2001) argues

that immigrant groups today do not only assimilate toward a dominate culture, but also to

sub-cultures within a society.

The notion of a universally acknowledged ‘core culture’ has lost all its

plausibility since the late 1960s. This, in turn, has raised the question of

the reference population towards which assimilation is said to occur.Characteristic of the newer literature on assimilation is its willingness to

consider multiple reference populations and correspondingly segmented

forms of assimilation (Portes and Zhou 1993; Waters 1994; Zhou 1997;

Neckerman et al . 1999).

It is no longer true that assimilation (or integration, a term that often, especially in the European context, refers to

much the same thing) is ‘inevitably’ (Brubaker 2001; 540)

Portes and Böröcz (1989) also discuss the problem of early assimilation theory as being

too linear of a process to account for the many outcomes of relations. They explain that

early theories were based entirely on studies of the European migrants and did not

observe those who were not assimilated into mainstream society or migrants who may

have returned to their homelands for various reasons.

There are clearly great differences between past migration flows (pre-1965)

observed by Gordon, those of the late 1970s analyzed by Berry, and the migrations of

today. While obviously more ethnically and culturally diverse, there is also a context of

advanced globalization and a momentum to the movement that allows for a multiplicity

of paradoxical ethnic identities today. Enclaves of first and second wave migrants coexist

in the same geographic spaces with transnational corporate elites and labor migrants.19

Likewise, today’s population movement is a perpetual feature of the international system

19 Take for example Vancouver, BC & San Francisco, CA where vibrant, historic Chinatowns help to

maintain the ethnic identity of early waves of migrants, while also supplying transnational, jet-setting dual

nationals (from Hong Kong and Taiwan particularly) with the cultural accoutrements (media, foods,clothes, jewelry, etc.) of their homeland.




whereas previous flows were short lived historic events. For this reason “there are likely

to be strong incentives to keep ethnic affiliations alive even for the third generation”

(Alba and Nee 1997 p. 836). The results of the various ethnoscapes of postmodern

migration may be a portrayed best in the concept of transnationalism. Portes (1997)

defines transnationalism “dense networks across political borders created by immigrants

in their quest for economic advancement and social recognition” (812). Portes et al.

(1999) further explain that transnationalism offers yet another, albeit alternative model

for the immigrants where “success does not so much depend on abandoning their culture

and language to embrace those of another society as on preserving their original cultural

endowment, while adapting instrumentally to a second” (229) This definitions of

transnationalism sees adaptation in producing hybrid identities and cultural practices

(Glick-Schiller et al.1995, also Anthias 2001) such as biculturalism, bilingualism, and

trans-local solidarity (such as reinforcement of national identity in the exterior). Thus,

cultural outcomes in the context of reception have been treated as a continuum with

transnationalism as one of the possible outcomes along with the smooth acculturation,

assimilation, and incorporation of historic assimilation theory and its contemporary

segmented reconceptualization.

Application of Models of Assimilation to Diasporic International Adoptions

Models of acculturation, assimilation, and incorporation have routinely been applied to

the major historic and sizeable movements of populations to the United States such as

Mexicans (Massey et al. 1994; Massey et al. 1987; Espenshade 1999; Sanchez 1993),

East Asians (Tse 2000; Zhou & Bankston 1998) and Turks to Germany (Faist 2000).

However, I wish to test the theory that international adoptions represent diasporas that,

while clearly unique forms of immigration, may be conceived of in the terms of other

17



international migrations (Hübinette 2002; Williams 2002; and principally Miller-Loessi

& Kilic 2002).

I would begin by referring to the diagram below of the “three stages of

international migration and transnationalization” constructed by Faist (2000). This

0100090000030202000002008a01000000008a01000026060f000a03574d46430100000000000100b8da00

00000001000000e802000000000000e8020000010000006c00000000000000040000005a000000e4000000

0000000000000000873b0000b922000020454d4600000100e80200000e0000000200000000000000000000

0000000000d827000090330000d8000000170100000000000000000000000000005c4b0300684304001600

00000c000000180000000a0000001000000000000000000000000900000010000000201c00006810000025

0000000c0000000e00008052000000700100000100000038ffffff0000000000000000000000009001000000

00000004400012540069006d006500730020004e0065007700200052006f006d0061006e00000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000006234093000000000040000000000ae309f3409300000000053169001

001002020603050405020304877a0020000000800800000000000000ff01000000000000540069006d0065

0073002000000065007700200052006f006d0061006e000000540069006d00650073000000403593051081

cc300000000004481200f2b40230044812004c6eaf301c4812006476000800000000250000000c000000010

00000120000000c00000001000000180000000c00000000000002540000005400000000000000040000005

a000000e40000000100000088870740d145074000000000b8000000010000004c000000040000000000000

000000000201c00006810000050000000200000005b00000046000000280000001c0000004744494302000

000ffffffffffffffff211c00006910000000000000460000001400000008000000474449430300000025000000

0c0000000e0000800e000000140000000000000010000000140000000400000003010800050000000b0200

000000050000000c022f010802040000002e0118001c000000fb020100010000000000bc020000000001020

22253797374656d0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000040000002d0100001c0

00000fb02f2ff0000000000009001000000000440001254696d6573204e657720526f6d616e000000000000

0000000000000000000000040000002d0101000400000002010100050000000902000000020d000000320a

0d000000010004000000000008022f0120010700040000002d010000030000000000

Figure 2 - Based Upon Faist (2002) Stylized stages of melting into the core, pluralization and three

forms of transnational social spaces p 259.

diagram is useful in visualizing how the three major approaches to immigrant

incorporation may be applied. By simply exchanging his term of “pluralization” with

segmented assimilation, “transnational circuits” with transnationalism, and “melting into

the core” with straight line or smooth assimilation, we see that all three historic and

contemporary explanations may be applied simultaneously. Moreover, by inclusion of a

third stage of “transnational communities,” Faist draws our attention to the globalizing

processes that may potentially influence immigrant incorporation.




Beginning with stage one, we see that immigration involves a migration or flight

from a homeland. In the case of international adoptions from China, Miller-Loessi &

Kilic (2002) have made the claim that there are various push factors resulting in a

“relatively large scale” flow of individuals (98% of whom are female) from the PRC.

These factors are namely the “sheer numbers of people” in China (causing considerable

strain on resources as China undergoes its own globalizing processes), the one-child

policy implemented to “restrain huge population growth rates,” and the patriarchal

culture that preferences male heirs and results in a sizeable (as many as a million)

orphaned population of female children (5-6).

According to Faist (2000) movement to the later part of stage one, “transnational

reciprocity,” is usually by means of transnational kinship networks and other social ties.

He does point out that in the case of refugees there is often “an abrupt severing of

transnational ties” to the homeland. Many international adoptions have been observed to

follow the latter pattern (Hübinette 2002; Williams 2002). Williams (2002) explains that

in the case of Vietnam international adoptees were in fact refugees: “In a humanitarian

military exercise known as Operation Babylift, thousands of orphans were evacuated

from Vietnam just before the ‘fall’ of Saigon as babies and then dispersed across

America, Australia, Canada and Europe” (1). In most cases, the only path to

incorporation was that of assimilation or melting into the core (Faist): “Unlike other

Vietnamese migrant youth, adoptees did not have much contact with Vietnamese or

Asian mentors and authority figures such as parents, grandparents and a sense of being

part of the Vietnamese migrant community” (Williams 2002). Similarly, Hübinette

(2002) notes that the 150,000 Korean adoptees dispersed world wide since the Korean

War found the only path was that of assimilation and that the only social support came in

19



the form of assuring the “adoptees’ adjustment to the adopting family and assimilation to

the host culture” (4). Compared to these child diasporas, that of Chinese adopted

daughters is quite unique. Due to the intentional construction of transnational reciprocity

(through the framing of the adoption as a “gift”) and the maintenance of both real and

symbolic cultural ties to China within a deliberate community that reinforces a global

ethnic identity, the options of a pluralized identities or the hybridities of transnationalism

are possible (Miller-Loessi & Kilic 2002; 8-11).

Similar movements have been noted among adult Korean and Vietnamese

adoptees as they struggle to regain a sense of their cultural heritage.

20

“The movement of

adopted Koreans is now trying to create an ethnic identity of its own in the third space

between their birth country’s dream of a global ethnic Korean community where the

adopted Koreans are automatically perceived as Korean brethren” (Hübinette 2002; 7).

Similarly, Williams (2002) notes that adult Vietnamese adoptees formed online networks

through egroups, message boards, instant messages and chat rooms that have resulted in

“virtual communities that encourages solidarity, collectivity and association” (6).

Thus, we see that even when the initial incorporation of the immigrant community stage

two is limited to melting into the core, transnational communities may still arise as a

result of the universal search for the particular (Robertson 1992). Identities may be

renegotiated at any point and in any generation (see Waters 1994). The uniqueness of the

Chinese diaspora in terms of its gendered nature, but more so in its deliberate

construction of transnational fields (Faist) and hybridized cultural identities will be an

important referent for future theories of immigrant incorporation. As Miller-Loessi &

20 A clear relation exists here with the advocacy networks of Keck and Sikkink (1998) and the INGOs of

Boli & Thomas (1999) as organizations like Korea G.O.A.L. (Global Overseas Adoptees’ Link) have act ona worldwide scale drawing attention to the issues of international adoptions.




Kilic predict, “it is very possible that a strong ethnic group

consciousness sustained over a long time and based on a sense of

distinctiveness, a common history, and a belief in common fate will

form….both their ethnicity and their gender will bind them together in

some form of shared consciousness” (20).

21



Defining Culture and Social Structure

Culture and social structure are concepts rife with different meanings and associated controversies. How

do you think it is most useful to define and use these concepts? Does it depend on the context? If so, give

examples.

Culture is like the sum of special knowledge that accumulates in any large united family and is the common property of all its members. When we of the great CultureFamily meet, we exchange reminiscences about Grandfather Homer, and that awful old Dr. Johnson, and Aunt Sappho, and poor Johnny Keats.

- Aldous Huxley 21

Throughout the previous two essays, the concept of culture has been central. While I

teach my Introduction to Sociology students that culture is the material and non-material

products of a human group or society passed from generation to generation through

shared interactions and experiences ,22 the various usages of the term culture in the global

literature find my characterization deficient. Usages I have recorded include:

Ethnic culture, cultural identity, resilient culture, world culture, culture of

consumption, hegemonic culture, cultural imperialism, cultural contact,cultural solidarity, cross-cultural linkages and practices, deculturation,

cosmopolitan culture, cultural milieu, cultural hybridity, synthetic culture,

authentic culture, exogenous culture, dimensions of culture, acculturation,cultural diasporization, ethnocultural identity, postmodern culture, cultural

capital, consequences of culture, cultural differentiation, etc….

The problematique regarding a definition of culture that encapsulates all of its

distinct usages has long been discussed. For example, “In Culture: A Critical Review of

Concepts and Definitions (1952), U.S. anthropologists A.L. Kroeber and Clyde

Kluckhohn cited 164 definitions of culture, ranging from “learned behaviour” to “ideas in

the mind,” “a logical construct,” “a statistical fiction,” “a psychic defense mechanism,”

21 http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/quotations-on-culture/quotations-on-

culture.html#Aldous%20Huxley 22 From Macionis (2002) and Popenoe (2000).

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/quotations-on-culture/quotations-on-culture.html#Aldous%20Huxley









and so on” (Encyclopædia Britannica).23 Kroeber and Kluckhohn settle on a definition

that Miller-Loessi and Parker (2003) refer to as “so all-inclusive that it seems to us less

useful” (3). Britannica points out that a resolution may rest in the 1959 essay by Leslie A.

White entitled “The Concept of Culture” where he leaves the specific definition up to the

particular level of analysis and “context of the scientific interpretation.” This would be,

however, a definition of last resort. In this essay, then, I will incorporate the conceptions

of culture as a product of a historical process, linking it to the concepts contained within

the global literature, and delineating culture from actors, values, and social structure.

Throughout the literature we have seen culture as a product of a historical

process. This process creates the product of sameness within a cultural (or ethnic) group.

Hence, shared experiences and a shared milieu (historically limited in time-space)

creating a constancy of values and viewpoints that can be measured empirically in

anthropological observations and social-psychological tests (see for example Schwartz

1992; The Chinese Cultural Connection 1987; and Hofstede1980). Hofstede (1980) in

particular, defines culture as “collective programming of the mind…describing entire

societies” (13). Cultures, he says, are “rooted in value systems of major groups of the

population” and have become “stabilized over long periods of history” (13). In this

definition he distinguishes between cultures and values indicating that culture result from

shared values.

This historical view tends to neglect, however, the destabilizing forces of

globalization that are perhaps more apparent in other texts. Agadjanian and Qian (1997),

for example, found that while there were marked differences in the incidence of abortion

(a cultural practice) among ethnic Kazak and Russian women in Kazakhstan, an

23 Also discussed in Miller-Loessi and Parker (2003).

23



acculturation process was occurring that perhaps blurred the lines between the

ethnocultural groups. Their evidence indicated that Kazak women who were more

“Russified” (i.e. were interviewed in Russian and by proxy have become culturally more

like Russian women) had become acculturated beyond the simple use of language to a

more basic cultural practice of family planning by induced abortion at levels that were

more like those of ethnic Russian women.

Thus, a modern definition of culture must recognize the ongoing globalization

processes, but must determine whether that processes is essentially one creating products

of greater cultural homogeneity or heterogeneity. The neorealist view sees the forces of

world culture, through the increased presence and participation of INGOs, as creating

greater isomorphism among global actors (Meyer et al. 1997; Boli & Thomas 1999). On

the other hand, Appadurai (1990) sees culture that is imagined, negotiated, co-opted and

composed of flexible, overlapping and unbounded dimensions that create more

disjuncture and less isomorphism. This contradiction of cultural processes is address by

Barber (1996) who views the cultural outcomes of globalism and tribalism (universalism

and particularism of Robertson 1992) as two aspects of the same process. Likewise

Anthias (2001) see transnationalism and globalization as creating hybrid cultures that

exemplify “the increasing synthesis of cultural elements between minority and majority

‘cultures’” (619) while also creating diasporas of local culture (an idea she attributes to

Hall 1990). Therefore we have three or more simultaneous products of the globalization

of culture resulting in instances of greater sameness, greater difference, and new

amalgamations of old cultural formations.

Before drawing these assorted threads together into one germane definition, the

distinction between culture and social structure must be made. Miller-Loessi and Parker




(2003) draw upon House (1981) to explain this differentiation:

Social structure is defined by House (1981:542) as “a persisting and bounded pattern of social relationships (or pattern of behavioral

interaction) among the units (that is, persons or positions) in a social

system.” Culture may be both a cause and consequence of symbols, behavior, and physical artifacts, just as culture and social structure may

reciprocally interact. (Miller-Loessi & Parker 2003; 3-4)

A similar argument is presented by Rohner (1984) in Smith and Bond (1998) Social

Psychology Across Cultures. They explain that Rohner defines social system as “the

behaviour of multiple individuals within a culturally-organized population, including

their patterns of social interactions and networks of social relationships” (39). Moreover,

Rohner explains that a society is largest collective unit “organized around a common

culture and a common social system” (40). Thus, in our most universal definition of

culture we may recognize that social structure is the pattern of relations that governs the

interactions of global actors within the world society. Global society then is the habitus in

which the ongoing processes of culture create the various, paradoxical products of global

culture whereas a global social structure provides the rules by which global actors much

engage one another.

Toward a Universal Definition of Culture

A definition of culture that would be relevant in today’s global environment and yet

applicable at all levels of analysis would surprisingly be very similar to that I give my

Introduction to Sociology students. I would begin with a definition that sees culture

simply as the products of people who interact with one another. Thus, they are social

objects in the sense of Mead and other Symbolic Interactionists. I would add, however,

the caveat that these social products are situated . I locate culture within a social structure

and associate it using reciprocal ties to the actors who create culture, the values that guide

25



those actors and are in turn influenced by extant historical cultural trends. I also

acknowledge the paradoxical globalizing and localizing forces that influence social

structures, actors, values, and cultures alike (See Fig. 2). In this way, we may see

applications of this definition of culture at any level. For example, one may have a home

culture made up of historical family traditions and values learned in interactions with

parents, yet influenced by other exogenous entities (media, school, church, etc.).

Likewise the actors within the world polity (social structure), influenced by the values of

democracy (a homogenizing force) and principals of individualism that acknowledge

diversity (and thus particularism) as well as external globalizing forces such as

capitalism, technological change, etc., produce a culture (shared discourses, experiences,

and even commercial goods) that, in turn, further influences the values and very global

actors themselves.

Figure 2 - The Relation of Culture, Values, & Actors within a Social Structure




Works Cited

Alba Richard and Victor Nee.1997 “Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration” In HIM,

137-160. (also in IMR 31 (4): 826-874)

Anthias, Floya (2001) New Hybritities, old concepts: the limits of 'culture.'Ethnic and Racial Studies(Routledge) Vol 24 No 4 pp 619-641

Appadurai, Arjun, “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” Public Culture, Vol. 2,

No. 2 (Spring 1990) NX 180 .S6 P8

Barber, Benjamin, Jihad vs. McWorld (Times Books, 1995) HM201 .B37 1996

Berry, John (1980) “Acculturation as varieties of adaptation”, pp. 9-26 in Amado Padilla, ed.,

Acculturation: Theory, Models, and Some New Findings. American Association for theAdvancement of Science Selected Symposium 39. GN366 .A28

Boli, John and George Thomas (1999) “INGOs and the Organization of World Culture,” in Boli and

Thomas, editors, Constructing World Culture Stanford: Stanford University Press, 13-49.

Bonacich, Edna 1973. “A Theory of Middleman Minorities.” American Sociological Review 38(October):

583-594.

Brubaker,Rogers (2001) The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels

in France, Germany, and the United States Ethnic and Racial Studies Vol24 No4 pp. 531–548

Encyclopædia Britannica “Culture” <http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=118246> [Accessed September 30,

2002].

Espenshade, Thomas J. 1999. The challenge of illegal immigration. In America's demographic tapestry:

baseline for the new millennium, edited by James W. Hughes and Joseph J. Seneca. Rutgers

University Press: New Brunswick, New Jersey. Pp. 61-77.

Faist Thomas (2000a) Transnationalization in international migration: implications for the study of

citizenship and culture Ethnic and Racial Studies (Routledge) Vol 23 No 2 pp 189-222.

-- (2000b) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford:

England. Oxford University Press.

Foner, Nancy. 1997. “What’s new about transnationalism? New York immigrants today and at the turn of

the century.” Diaspora 6(3): 355-76.

Giddens, Anthony “From Consequences of Modernity” rpt. In Colonial Discourse and Post-ColonialTheory, ed. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, Columbia University Press, 1994: JV51 .C73

1993

Greider, William, One World, Ready or Not (Simon & Schuster, 1997): chapters 1-5, 14 HB501 .G647

1997

Hall Stuart (1994) “Cultural Identity and Diaspora” in Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory, ed.

Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, Columbia University Press JV51 .C73 1993

Harvey, David, “Time-Space Compression and the Rise of Modernism as a Cultural Force” from his TheCondition of Postmodernity (Blackwell, Oxford, 1990); CB428 .H38 1989

27

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cHM201+.B37+1996/chm++201+b37+1996/-5,-1,,E/browse

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cGN366+.A28/cgn++366+a28/-5,-1,,E/browse


http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/c+JV51++.C73+1993/cjv+++51+c73+1993/-5,-1,,E/browse


http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/c+HB501+.G647+1997/chb++501+g647+1997/-5,-1,,E/browse





http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cCB428++.H38+1989/ccb++428+h38+1989/-5,-1,,E/browse

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cHM201+.B37+1996/chm++201+b37+1996/-5,-1,,E/browse







http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cCB428++.H38+1989/ccb++428+h38+1989/-5,-1,,E/browse



Hirst and Thompson (1999). Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of

Governance, Polity Press.

Hobsbawm, E J., “The World Unified” from The Age of Capital 1848-1875 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson,

1975) D359 .H63 1975

Huntington, Samuel P., “The Clash of Civilization?” from Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, 1993.

Hübinette, Tobias (July 2002) The adopted Koreans - diaspora politics and the construction of an ethnic

identity. Paper presented at the First World Conference of Korean Studies, Academy of Korean

Studies, Seongnam, Korea, July 18-20, 2002.

Jacobson, David, Rights Across Borders: Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship (Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, 1997 [ppbk edition]). JF801 .J34 1996

Keck, Margaret E. and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International

Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998). JF529 .K43 1998

Leung Shirley (Aug 30, 2002 )“McHaute Cuisine: Armchairs, TVs And Espresso -- Is It McDonald's? ---

Burger Giant's Makeover In France Boosts Sales; Big Change for Fast Food --- Some Franchisees

Have a Beef” Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.

Macionis, John (2002) SOCIETY: THE BASICS, 6th Edition Prentice Hall

Massey, Douglas S., Rafael Alarcón, Jorge Durand, and Humberto González. 1987. Return to Aztlan: The

Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Massey, Douglas S., Luin Goldring, Jorge Durand (1994) Continuities in Transnational Migration: An

Analysis of Nineteen Mexican Communities American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 6, pp.

1492-1533.

Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez, “World Society and the

Nation-State,” American Journal of Sociology, 1997

Miller-Loessi, Karen & Zeynep Kilic (2002). A Unique Diaspora? The Case of Adopted Girls from the

People’s Republic of China. Forthcoming in Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol10

no3.

Miller-Loessi, Karen and John Parker (Forthcoming 2003). Chapter prepared for Handbook of Social

Psychology, John DeLamater, editor. New York: Kluwer Plenum.

Padilla, Amado ed. (1980) Acculturation: Theory, Models, and Some New Findings. American

Association for the Advancement of Science Selected Symposium 39. GN366 .A28

Pieterse, Jan (2000) Globalization and Governance Colloquium Presentation, Department of Sociology.

Arizona State University.

Popenoe, David (2000) Sociology, 11/E Prentice Hall

Portes Alejandro. 1997. Immigration theory for a new century: some problems and opportunities. IMR 31

(4): 799-825

Portes, Alejandro, Luis Eduardo Guarnizo and Patricia Landolt, eds. (1999). Special Volume on

Transnational Migrant Communities, Ethnic and Racial Studies. 22(2).

Portes, Alejandro & Jozsef Böröcz. 1989. “Contemporary Immigration: Theoretical Perspectives On Its

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cD359+.H63+1975/cd+++359+h63+1975/-5,-1,,E/browse

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cJF801+.J34+1996/cjf++801+j34+1996/-5,-1,,E/browse

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/c+JF529+.K43+1998/cjf++529+k43+1998/-5,-1,,E/browse





http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cD359+.H63+1975/cd+++359+h63+1975/-5,-1,,E/browse

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cJF801+.J34+1996/cjf++801+j34+1996/-5,-1,,E/browse






Determinants and Modes of Incorporation.” International Migration Review 23:606-630.

Portes, Alejandro & Ruben Rumbaut (1995). Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou (1993). The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its

Variants. The Annals 503:74-96.

Roberts Bryan R., Reanne Frank, & Fernando Lozano-Ascencio. 1999. “Transnational migrant

communities and Mexican migration to the US.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (2): 238-266.

Robertson, Roland, Globalization: social theory and global culture (Sage, 1992). H61 .R63x 1992

Sassen, Saskia (2001) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo 2nd ed . HG184.N5 S27 2001

Sanchez George J.. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles,

1900-1945 (1993)

Tomlinson, John (1991), Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction Pinter Publishers CB151 .T56

1991b

Tse, Lucy 2000 The Effects of Ethnic Identity Formation on Bilingual Maintenance and Development: An

Analysis of Asian American Narratives International Journal of Bilingual Education andBilingualism (Multilingual Matters)

-- (1999) Globalization and Culture Polity Press HM101 .T633 1999b

Vertovec Steven 2001 Transnationalism and identity Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Carfax

Publishing

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974) “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concept for Comparative Analysis” from Comparative Studies in Society and History, 16.

---. (January 2000)From sociology to historical social science: prospects and obstacles. British Journal of Sociology, Volume 51, Number 1 pp. 25-35.

Waters Mary C. 1994 Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York

City, IMR pp. 795-820

Williams, Indigo (2002) Downloading Heritage: Vietnamese Diaspora Online. Comparative Media Studies

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Media in Transition: globalization and convergence,

international conference date: 10-12 May 2002.

Zhou, Min and Carl L. Bankston III. 1998. Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt toLife in the United States. Sage

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cH61++.R63x+1992/ch++++61+r63+x+1992/-5,-1,,E/browse


http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cHG184.N5+S27+2001/chg++184+n5+s27+2001/-5,-1,,E/browse

http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cCB151++.T56+1991b/ccb++151+t56+1991+b/-5,-1,,E/browse



http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cHM101+.T633+1999b/chm++101+t633+1999+b/-5,-1,,E/browse



http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/cHG184.N5+S27+2001/chg++184+n5+s27+2001/-5,-1,,E/browse




Comprehensive Examination Rtf

Documents

Transcript of Comprehensive Examination Rtf